ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Storage conditions differentially alter the human tooth enamel proteome.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Exfoliated or extracted human teeth are increasingly used as accessible records of health history, biomarkers for predicting health risks, or analyzed for organic components to uncover the mechanisms of atypical development or disease. During formation, dental enamel incorporates and preserves biological information through mineralization, thereby creating a fossil-like record within the tooth structure as it reaches a mineral content of over 95% by weight. The key to unlocking this record depends not only on using appropriate analytical methodologies, but also on how storage conditions affect the original biogenic information. Methods: To investigate the effect of storage conditions on enamel proteome, human third molars were collected upon extraction and stored for 4 months under four commonly used protocols in dental research: (1) at -80°C; (2) in 70% ethanol (EtOH) at room temperature (RT); (3) air-dried (Air) at RT; and (4) in phosphate-buffered saline with sodium azide at RT. Results: Mass spectrometry-based proteomic analysis identified 454, 460, 232, and 221 proteins in the -80°C, EtOH, Air, and PBS groups, respectively. Enamel-specific proteins, such as amelogenin, ameloblastin, enamelin, kallikrein-related peptidase-4, and matrix metalloproteinase-20, were identified across all conditions, although their relative abundances varied depending on storage conditions. In addition, the preservation of specific protein families varied depending on the storage conditions. Discussion: Although -80°C storage remains the gold standard for preserving organic material, storage in 70% EtOH at RT produced comparable proteomic results. This suggests that ethanol-based storage protocols may serve as a more practical alternative, easier to implement for sample collection, and help provide consistency in enamel research. Our findings underscore the importance of both storage methods and standardized protocols in enamel proteomics, as they help avoid bias in protein detection and facilitate comparisons of datasets between studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.